Democrats said the earth would freeze... Then they said the earth would melt... Then they said the earth kept changing. And you know what the one constant in all of those conflicting positions was? SCIENCE told them it was so!

Once global climate change started making 'scientific decisions' based on consensus, they lost me. The history of science is chock-full of examples where one brilliant scientist proves something contrary to what 'every credible scientist knows to be true'.

'Everyone' knew the earth was flat.

'Everyone' knew the sun revolved around the earth.

Etc.

First Democrats won the WH, the Senate and the Congress, and the GOP was in decline.

Then 2 years later the GOP won the House, Dems kept the Senate and Oval Office... And the Left said the GOP was in decline.

Then 2 years later the GOP kept the House, Dems kept the Senate, and Obama garnered fewer voters than in his previous election but retained office... And the left again said the GOP was in decline.

Last year the GOP kept the House and took the Senate, Obama was still in the White House, but few Democrats wanted to stand next to him as they ran for re-election... And the left again says the GOP is in decline.

"You keep using that word. I don't think it means what you think it does."

Not really. The really one remaining significant difference between the parties is that public shaming is still a career-ender in the Democratic party.

Defend. Please.

Clinton lied under oath in court while President - his career ended?

Bush was a millionaire when he entered office (both Bushs).

Clinton was not a millionaire when he entered office - I think his gig as Gov. Of Arkansas netted him a cool $35K in salary.

Obama stepped into office a millionaire from book sales of his TWO autobiographies.

If Hillary becomes President, she'll step in as a multi-millionaire - probably richer than 'obscenely' rich Mitt Romney.

It will be an interesting exercise to compare the Bush Whitehouse Email Controversy' with Hilary's erupting email 'scandal'

You seem to have forgotten that when it comes to the current administration and it's supporters, simply asserting something is in itself sufficient proof to support the assertion.

For example "There isn't even a smidgen of a scandal" at the IRS and it's enhanced interrogation of conservative groups. "It was a protest to an offensive video on YouTube" for Benghazi. Etc...

He never said to skip the legal process, he said that she should wind up in jail. I would enjoy watching that trial as it plays out during the Democrat Primary...

I suspect she'd have another one of those priceless Hillary moments "What difference, at this point, does it make..."

Imagine the reaction on the Left if, for example, Dick Cheney had EXCLUSIVELY used a private, non-government email server his entire time in office.

You sound like the apologists back in 2008 that excused Obama's lies on the campaign trail as 'something he had to do to win' - what?!?!

EVERY official communication email she sent originated from a non-governmental email server, and only those emails addressed to State a department workers were ever stored on federal email servers.

Why is that a problem? That means any emails she sent to anyone overseas, leaders of foreign nations, for example, were never stored on federal email servers, invisible to any FOIA request or Congressional investigation.

I further assume that the people around her are also smart, intelligent people, and not all political-appointees - didn't they think it odd to address their emails to the Secretary of State at pantsuit@hillary2016.org?

So, what the FCC should really focus on is ... to open up the broadband market to more competition.

Except they don't have jurisdiction, AFAIK.

The problem is the voters have elected representatives that agreed to and enforced local monopolies to encourage investment in enabling infrastructure. Without the offer of a monopoly on the local market, how would the local government be able to ensure everyone has access to the services offered, not just those most likely to subscribe to the services offered? How many competitors would enter a market and invest in a parallel infrastructure to fight over a defined number of customers?

An infrastructure funded by the entire community, both those that sign up for high-speed Internet and those that don't. That sounds wonderful - free infrastructure for the providers, funded by taxpayers... Unless you are one of the folks that doesn't have an interest in high-speed internet access...

A sizable percentage of Americans that are offered high-speed internet service opt out, either for cost or lack of interest. 'Sizable percentage' is far from a majority, but in many communities that rate is about 25% (from memory), and includes people with access, but no interest in high-speed internet access.

It makes no difference to a person in one municipality how many ISPs there are are in other municipalities...

Probably the most intelligent, logical, and well-reasoned argument I've seen on Slashdot in years!

A municipal Internet service, funded with tax-payer dollars, what could go wrong?

Gee, there isn't any chance some activist groups would file suits forcing the government to filter out hate speech, pornography, extreme violence, gun sales, etc on their "tax-payer-funded Internet"? No, that would never happen...

Oh wait, we already do that on taxpayer-funded Internet in our schools and libraries!